geordief

Thanks.

You don't have a reference for that do you? I was convinced my headaches were due to that (and acted accordingly with success **) but was unable to find any confirmatory evidence online ** by avoiding indigestion I cleared myself of those chronic headaches and also noted that, while I still had them they would disappear once a healthy hunger came back.

One of my early life vainglorious achievements was to have been kicked out of Boy Cubs for failing the tidiness test. Needless to say I have gone from strength to strength ever since

Janus claritatis magister est. (That had had me puzzled for years,although I have it mostly learned for a good while now....the Doppler vs the time dilation,to mangle it a bit)

If mass-energy curves spacetime and mass and energy are quantized (are they?) does it follow that spacetime curvature is also quantized? From that would spacetime be quantized?

Did you try the uncertainty settings?

Yes maybe I am a bit addled (in a waiting queue now for 3 hours) Of course c is a ratio .Why did I imagine it could be a simple constant (physical as you say)

So c is fundamentally a ratio rather than a simple constant? Is spacetime based on a ratio and is this ratio set in stone or could it be different in another universe?

Referring back to Brian Cox's "musings "would it be conceivable for a fundamental ratio like that between distance and time to be different in another universe?

@ strange Is that like replacing fundamental constant values with fundamental ratios?

Oh dear .Thanks autocomplete....."multimeter" should have been "multiverse" in my post

I know it is not what you are asking but I think it was his latest series(called something like "Being Human " from memory) I think I described it fairly accurately. Often what he says is surprising ,which is why I wondered if he was openly "musing I am ,without foundation attracted to this infinite multiverses idea but accept that it may be unscientific if it is entirely unverifiable (not that I am in a position to claim even that)

Was watching Brian Cox on BBC who opined that the fundamental constants such as the speed of light could vary from one multiverse (!!!) to another. So not that fundamental after all according to his musings(?)

What about stretching ? Does that lay the foundations for exercise? Would it allow us to exercise more as the body gets older?

Trying to orient my understanding of this Euclidean 3d space as against the distorted version which more accurately represents the reality one is interested in can I ask what ,if anything the geodesics can be used to represent? There is no analogy to spacetime geodesics ,is there? Nothing moves along them ,does it?

I think you were also telling me that this 3d euclidean cylinder is stressed out of shape by the presence of molecules/atoms within the physical structure. A bit like a tumour in the human body, Is it also possible to have "holes" in the 3d cylinder that would model other physical processes? (where the stress works inwards rather than outwards.......)

No I didn't try it physically . It just seemed obvious.;P=kT where k is a constant caused by the combination of whatever value of constant Volume is chosen and R ,which is another constant I am not familiar with but accept(the Gas constant)** It is just the same as a two dimensional y=ax graph ,ain't it? Are you just saying that all sets of mathematical values can be represented geometrically and so to describe them as being "geometrical" it only trivially true? **Also I don't know how to upload any of my drawings except as a photo which gives me headaches (not seriously)

If I have understood the analogy ,the volume of the molecules locally displace the medium (the medium just being the volume measurements and so being abstract-a bit like a hole in the ground changing the geometry of the surrounding space?) Is there any corresponding model whereby mass could displace the thing it is "embedded" in? The Higgs Field perhaps? Apologies for the probable evidence of obtuseness ,I am learning to live with it (have always been a very slow learner and am getting worse) Btw I have accepted Strange's clarification of AE's stance on geometrization (it is wrong to think he was objecting to some unique geometrizing quality of GR )

I should be well chuffed to have been apparently mistaken for Einstein as That was Einstein's quote and not mine(Strange copied the Einstein quote from the link I provided on the other science forum ;it is the 4th post in the thread) I don't know if I should attempt to answer your question as I too am trying too understand that Einstein quote (amongst other things)

I don't understand your phrase ,"geometry is the field" . Do you mean there is a map of a set of points (events) where each point has a different geometry (spacetime curvature)? Spacetime curvature represents a kind of geometry?

Here is where I found (and participated in) that discussion. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65940.msg556162#msg556162

I am learning that AE never accommodated himself to a geometrical interpretation of GR (stand to be corrected of course) Do any practical consequences flow from the adoption of his interpretation of GR as against what I understand is now generally accepted as the "best" interpretation. Or is it just you say "tomato" and I say "tomato"? For instance ,would it matter when considering any of the possible theories around Quantum Gravity whether Einstein was right or wrong?

Would there be any practical,verifiable consequences of gravity having a quantized nature? Would it follow that at finite distances global expansion would take over and ,calving -iceberg-like it would be farewell to the outer regions of the universe? (if gravity is the only force capable of causing global contraction at extreme distances) ps wasn't there some recent story about possibly testing this using entanglement?

Is the curvature of spacetime responsible for this ?(if galaxies are not bound together by gravity does this change the model?) I think that was just meant to be an analogy, and not to be taken literally.

Is that simply because nothing that is dynamic can have a definite boundary?